Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[metis]

How many times have we seen people troll through here claiming that scientists and mathematicians are all wrong?

There's plenty good reason to accept the basic premise of the BB, and mathematics has proven itself over the many years to actually do a reasonably good job in explaining many of the complexities about our universe.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's more of a philosophical question. All I can say is that if you drop a brick on your foot it will hurt.

And if you drop a computer on your foot, it megahertz.

 

[outhouse]

Hold it! .....where did the super massive black hole came from?

We do not know.


And you are the one who claimed nothing from nothing, not science. A singularity is what started this universe, and a black hole is a singularity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ That's almost embarrassing.

Forget the snark my dark friend...explain how there there can be more than one infinity?

 

[Parsimony]

It takes a dunce to ignore the solar system's galactic orbital motion of 155 miles per hour hence the speed of our solar system.

What makes you think scientists ignore the Solar System's motion?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

What makes you think scientists ignore the Solar System's motion?

In another thread the same 'scientists' refuse to accept the external reference for the Earth turning daily even without moving on to the larger motion of the Earth moving around the Sun and how the original heliocentric astronomers judged it. Here again the empiricists made a mess of things and never fully understood how to use observations of external objects to prove the Earth's orbital motion. The next motion is the Earth's motion through the galaxy along with the rest of the solar system and how to determine that motion.

Crawl,walk,run in an intellectual sense but haven't seen anyone, spiritual or not, being able to crawl just yet.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So this is how I've always understood it...hence my sig line. It has always baffled me how anyone could even imagine that you can get something from nothing.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Prove it. Or refute the proof I gave in the link to my thread on infinities. And, as physics depends on your statement being false, explain why physics has been so successful (not to mention numerous other scientific disciplines which likewise rely on at least the basic distinction between denumerable infinities and those that are uncountable).

Haha...you give me mathematical equations that are meant to represent infinity as if the finger pointing at the moon is the moon. Equations are just another form of language to describe reality, but are not THAT which they are meant to represent. I tell you that the concept of infinity represents a reality that is beyond the dualistic mind's apprehension....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The idea of infinite density/ zero volume or an untenable geometric concept called a 'singularity' is a college prank but apparently nobody sees the joke. Simply invert the terms and you get infinite volume /zero density which is more or less the same elaborate way to giving meaning to a description of 'nothing' as infinite density/zero volume.

The entire issue is really how modern day society fell victim to elaborate wordplays that serve no purpose other than academic funding and things like that.

Yes..it is called hubris. The very idea that the mortal mind, that is so relatively cosmically primitive that it processes its perception spatially and sequentially, imagines its resulting mental model is equal to the reality it perceived is a fine example of ignorant arrogance.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are confusing "astrology" with "astronomy" again.

No, it is you who are confused....he said and meant astronomy!

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Yes..it is called hubris. The very idea that the mortal mind, that is so relatively cosmically primitive that it processes its perception spatially and sequentially, imagines its resulting mental model is equal to the reality it perceived is a fine example of ignorant arrogance.

Arrogance is fine if there is some visible talent or achievement involved but these 'no center/no circumference' ideologies are so dumb and crude that they make a flat Earth notion look sane.

The human mind is spectacular when given an opportunity to shine and especially when looking out into the celestial arena and making sense of it all as far as contemporary tools allow. Jesus knew all about intellectual pretense, something which Oscar Wilde paraphrased and appropriate for your reply -

"Like all poetical natures Jesus loved ignorant people. He knew that
in the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great
idea. But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are
made stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of
which they even understand, a peculiarly modern type, summed up by
Christ when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of
knowledge, cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to
use it, though it may be made to open the gate of God's Kingdom.."
Oscar Wilde

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So this is how I've always understood it...hence my sig line. It has always baffled me how anyone could even imagine that you can get something from nothing.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I see a couple of problems besides the one where having no beginning is even more incomprehensible than coming out of nothing.

If the universe had no beginning, then it's been expanding for an infinite amount of time so that the energy in everything would have burned out long ago and we'd be frozen into absolute zero. This has the problem of explaining why there is the sound of the Big Bang in the universe (the cosmic microwave background radiation), or how if we reversed the expansion, everything would come back to a single point.

Then there's this from the article:
"Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity."

If you can't pound a square peg into a round hole, you can't just shave it off and declare all those shavings to be irrelevant. That Big Bang firewall has been very frustrating to adherents of revealed religions as well as atheist scientists as well. The ones who derive satisfaction from the situation are agnostic deists such as myself. If God wanted us not to know that It existed so that we could make our own moral decisions without divine pressure, this is exactly what It would have to do.

We're still a long way from recognizing a coherent quantum theory, but I think the Transactional Interpretation is probably close. It's biggest problem for scientists is that it's too simple, and quantum transactions taking place backward in time is too....well, they've got to eliminate everything else first I guess. We are progressing, what with the once strongest "Many Worlds" and "Copenhagen" quantum interpretations loosing momentum, and favor.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How many times have we seen people troll through here claiming that scientists and mathematicians are all wrong?

There's plenty good reason to accept the basic premise of the BB, and mathematics has proven itself over the many years to actually do a reasonably good job in explaining many of the complexities about our universe.

But the OP suggesting the Cosmos is without a beginning is a peer reviewed scientific paper, are you saying I'm a troll for posting it?

And fyi....a reasonable good job in explaining many of the complexities of our universe is fine, but it is not the last word on the subject so be a good lad and allow the scientific method proceed without prejudice.

 

[metis]

But the OP suggesting the Cosmos is without a beginning is a peer reviewed scientific paper, are you saying I'm a troll for posting it?

And fyi....a reasonable good job in explaining many of the complexities of our universe is fine, but it is not the last word on the subject so be a good lad and allow the scientific method proceed without prejudice.

I was not referring to you or your posts but to GK's, so sorry that I didn't make that clear. I really appreciated your OP.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We do not know.

And you are the one who claimed nothing from nothing, not science. A singularity is what started this universe, and a black hole is a singularity.

You seem to be suggesting a combination of an eternal universe on the one hand, thus agreeing with the OP that the universe is without a beginning...and that black holes were present for BB to occur. on the other ....interesting!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I was not referring to you or your posts but to GK's, so sorry that I didn't make that clear. I really appreciated your OP.

Thank you metis...sorry for the misunderstanding...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So this is how I've always understood it...hence my sig line. It has always baffled me how anyone could even imagine that you can get something from nothing.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

A couple of problems, if the universe has been expanding "forever" (since there was no beginning, then we should have reached absolute zero by "now" at this end of forever. The there's the problem of the sound of the Big Bang, aka the cosmic microwave background radiation, and if we reverse celestial expansion, things come back to a single point/singularity.

Then there’s this admission the article:
"Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity."

If you can't pound a square peg into a round hole, you can't just shave it off and declare all those shavings to be irrelevant. That Big Bang firewall has been very frustrating to adherents of revealed religions as well as atheist scientists since it was theorize. But there is a satisfying explanation to the situation for agnostic deists (truth in reporting, such as myself). If God wanted us not to know that It existed so that we could make our own moral decisions without divine pressure, this is exactly what It would have done. Scientists like Stephen Hawking have had to back down begrudgingly from previous assertions of indications for conditions prior to the Big Bang. Others have been more gracious in admitting that a laissez-fair God can’t be ruled out...almost as begrudgingly.

We're still a long way from recognizing a coherent quantum theory, but I think the Transactional Interpretation is probably close. It's biggest problem for scientists is that it's too simple, and quantum transactions taking place backward in time is too....well, they've got to eliminate everything else first I guess. We are progressing, what with the once strongest "Many Worlds" and "Copenhagen" quantum interpretations loosing momentum, and favor.

 

[Ouroboros]

Forget the snark my dark friend...explain how there there can be more than one infinity?

Actually, that's easy. Backwards v forward. -∞ v +∞. (Now, is the point where the two infinite, past and future, meet. )

There's an infinite number of infinites.

There's an infinite number of odd numbers. Infinite of even numbers. Infinite of numbers divisible with 3. Infinite number of primes. And so on.

Also, thinking about relativity, every object has its own experience of time relative to the others. Every particle, every photon, all having their own little "bubble" of reality that will go on infinitely.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I was not referring to you or your posts but to GK's, so sorry that I didn't make that clear. I really appreciated your OP.

I think that is quite some spiel you all got going there with a whirlwind of voodoo and bluffing and besides, you have no reason to complain as the Churches are going along for the ride even though it is all crude nonsense.

The problem is generational and fed by an indoctrinating process through schools and colleges, convenient if you are an academic making a few dollars and gaining a reputation in the process but worthless in content and character.

There is no such thing as the 'scientific method' unless you call speculative conclusions using variable assertions a method and dressing it up in colorful language. There is however that vicious strain of empiricism that keeps academics in jobs and humanity entertained with outrageous claims.

Few over the centuries had the necessary depth and breath of historical and technical details to make a go at understanding where the herd driven conclusions come from and even the best ones such as Von Humboldt's 'Cosmos' commentary fail to nail down exactly where things went wrong -

"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another-- this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,--is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Von Humboldt ,Cosmos

 

[gnostic]

But the article says there was no big bang, nor a singularity....but by all means continue with your belief in them if it suits you for now....

There are currently and still valid evidences to support the Big Bang model, which is the universe have been expanding, since about 13.8 billion years ago.

The article on infinite universe model with the Quantum equation is only proven mathematically, so it is still "theoretical" physics. It has not yet being supported by the evidences. There is a very fundamental difference between theoretical physics and experimental physics - the later has evidences, while the former lack these evidences.

Until the article can actually definitive and verifiable evidences to support his or her claim, then such claim are no where near conclusive.

I am not scientist, theoretical or otherwise...I'm more of engineer, with background in applied science (I have majored in civil engineering and computer science). And though, I do find all theoretical physics to be fascinating, but as an engineer, I like my maths and evidences to go hand-in-hand. Do you understand what I am saying here?

I am not saying the article is wrong, I am saying until there are conclusive evidences to support his model, then it just a mathematical model, and nothing more. So until then, I see no reason to support the claim.